Comment on issue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description merely states the action without detailing any side effects, permissions, reversibility, or notification behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap, as the agent cannot infer any constraints or consequences beyond the surface action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple mutation operation and is front-loaded with the core action. There is no waste or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to identify the issue (through issueId or identifier), whether one is preferred, or any context about the comment's placement. An agent would need additional inference to invoke the tool correctly, making this incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% (only 'message' has a description in the schema). The tool description does not add any parameter semantics or clarify how to use 'issueId' vs 'identifier' or whether both are needed. It provides no compensation for the undocumented parameters, leaving the agent to guess the relationship between the two optional identifiers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add a comment to an issue' clearly states the verb (add), the object (comment), and the target (issue). It distinguishes the tool from all siblings, as no other sibling handles comments. While it is succinct, it leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: one would use this tool when they want to comment on an issue. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but no sibling tool is available for commenting, so the context is clear. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or any prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.